HP5+ vs. Delta 400

[marsbars]

I got some of this from my brother in law for Christmas. I have never shot either of this product. Most of my B&W has been Kodak or some of the more obscure brands. Do either of them have any quirks, or advantages? I don't have the capacity at the moment for my own development. I have it done at a local lab that does a damn fine job and doesn't charge me all that much for just development.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

HP5 is similar to Tri-X

Not the same but fairly similar - wide exposure latitude and fairly forgiving of mistakes in both exposure and development

Delta 400 requires much more precise exposure and development to get the best from it.

It will be a good test of your local labs process controls

Those people who get on with Delta 400 love it but its not to everyones taste

Have fun

Martin

 

[marsbars]

I have had some good results with Tri-X in the past. Some very nice pictures that looked great enlarged to 8x10 and a few larger. Looks like I had better get my snowshoes on and get out in the 4 feet we have already and get some shots of the winter Armageddon we have going on here.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Really, the only way to find out is to try it out for yourself

Everybody photographs differently (subject/lighting/exposure/...) and so one persons opinions are exactly that - the opinions of only one person

Extreme weather can often create great photographic opportunities.

Have a great time

Martin

 

[waynecrider]

You might question you lab and find out what developer their using. Some work better and some not as good with certain films, but that's a blanket statement based on experimentation and personal bias. I've shot both, developed both in Xtol at the suggested times and find that I prefer the Delta, but the HP5(+?) is not a bad film at all and I've seen absolutely beautiful pictures from it. What it takes is knowing the film/developer relationship to get the negative contrast and grain that you want. Of course since you don't develop film yourself, and you can easily do so even in your bathroom, you must rely on the lab which may not be optimal, but I'm sure suffices since they probably print for you as well unless you scan..

 

[wogster]

I got some of this from my brother in law for Christmas. I have never shot either of this product. Most of my B&W has been Kodak or some of the more obscure brands. Do either of them have any quirks, or advantages? I don't have the capacity at the moment for my own development. I have it done at a local lab that does a damn fine job and doesn't charge me all that much for just development.

HP5+ is Ilford's answer to Tri-X (a 400ASA conventional grain film) and Delta 400 is Ilford's answer to TMax 400 (a 400ASA T-grain film), I haven't used T-Max or Delta 400, although I did do a roll of Delta 100 once, and found it a nice film, haven't tried Delta 400 though, and I haven't used any Kodak B&W film, in over 25 years, I liked the Ilford films colour response better, and HP5+ had a nicer grain structure, not sure if that is still the case or not. Here in Canada it's easy to get the Ilford films, so never went back to Kodak after that.

You know film developing is easy to do at home, you don't even need a darkroom, a changing bag, a developing tank and reel, a few graduated cylinders, a set of drying clips and a thermometer and your in business. Add a bottle of Rodinal or HC110 which last forever and a week, and a small bottle of fixer, and your in business. If you don't do a lot, then use the fixer one shot, like the developer. Some folks like to give it a dip in photo-flo before finishing. I do my processing in the kitchen, so space isn't an issue. Nothing beats the feeling of pulling the still wet film off the reel and having that first look, knowing the no one has ever seen those negatives before. Your total investment, maybe $100.

 

[marsbars]

You know film developing is easy to do at home, you don't even need a darkroom, a changing bag, a developing tank and reel, a few graduated cylinders, a set of drying clips and a thermometer and your in business. Add a bottle of Rodinal or HC110 which last forever and a week, and a small bottle of fixer, and your in business. If you don't do a lot, then use the fixer one shot, like the developer. Some folks like to give it a dip in photo-flo before finishing. I do my processing in the kitchen, so space isn't an issue. Nothing beats the feeling of pulling the still wet film off the reel and having that first look, knowing the no one has ever seen those negatives before. Your total investment, maybe $100.

I have peered down the road of home development a time or two in the past. As a matter of fact, I have a couple of developing tanks and other various paraphernalia along with an unopened bag of D-76. However the mixing tools and measuring tools when added to the storage containers for mixed chemicals. And then add in the chemicals the cost was way over 100 bucks. I can get 20 rolls developed at my lab for that. Not that I don't want to learn the whole processing side of the hobby. Heck, my basement is light tight without any modifications. Guess I am not quite ready to jump off that cliff yet.

 

[2F/2F]

Try 'em. They are both great, but the look is different. The characteristic curves are one big difference, and the grit is another. The Delta looks and acts very much like a transparency film or digital to me. I prefer HP5. I don't find grain to be a huge drawback, usually.

Wogster, Ilford HP ("High-speed Panchromatic") was around well before Tri-X. Delta was a response to T-Max, but HP was not a response to Tri-X.

If you have the money, have a lab you trust, and don't need to push or pull, by all means, help your lab continue to offer b/w processing. We are at a point with film where it is "use it or lose it". We won't save film by talking about it on the Internet. We may prolong its life by spending lots of our money on it, however.

 

[wogster]

I have peered down the road of home development a time or two in the past. As a matter of fact, I have a couple of developing tanks and other various paraphernalia along with an unopened bag of D-76. However the mixing tools and measuring tools when added to the storage containers for mixed chemicals. And then add in the chemicals the cost was way over 100 bucks. I can get 20 rolls developed at my lab for that. Not that I don't want to learn the whole processing side of the hobby. Heck, my basement is light tight without any modifications. Guess I am not quite ready to jump off that cliff yet.

Lets see, a couple of graduated cylinders, probably get them from a lab supply or educational supply place for less then from a photo place, you only really need a 500ml and a 25ml, at least that's all I had for a long while. Some plastic 1L bottles, even pop bottle will do in a pinch, although brown glass is probably the best, you have the tank already and a dark space. Let's see $30 for the cylinders, $16 for a bottle of Rodinal, $12 for a bottle of Ilford Fixer, $8 for a thermometer, , total: $66. Grab a few spring clothespins, put a brad through the end to grip the end of the film, take a 2L pop bottles cut the top off, mix your developer one shot, and put in your cut off pop bottle. Take another pop bottle and mix 1L of fixer, it's usually 1+4 so 200ml of concentrate to make 1L, and that's usually good for about 10 rolls or so.

Rodinal is $16/l if your tank uses 500ml mixed 1+50 that's 10ml of developer per roll, or 1/100th of the bottle, or 16¢ per roll. Your fixer is $12/l and is good for about 50 rolls, or 24¢ per roll, so your total chemistries cost is 40¢ per roll, meaning that once you have done the first roll, $100 is good for 250 rolls. Once you have gone through your first 1L of fixer concentrate, use the old concentrate bottle instead of the pop bottle, apply something to mark it as the working solution. A big W (for working solution) in duct tape would work well. Plus of course you can get more flexibility, pushing and pulling film,

 

[d_chiesa]

Hi,
i convinced myself last week to start developing my film (to scan it, though... sorry!); ordered a bag of d-76, a paterson tank (2 reels), a changing bag, a bottle of fixer, one of photoflo all for slightly over 80 euro. A nice lab thermometer i got for 7, 3 graduated containers for 3 euro total and a bunch of recycled soda bottles. Still under the 100 mark. Of course i have a guy here that was charging 3 euro a roll, so that's about 30 rolls worth. But my point is to do it myself, not to save money; i have a dslr for that
How for example would i shoot tests and try different developing with that, even cut the same roll in a few strips for separate processing? I'm sure it'll be more difficult than drop it off, but i'll learn quite a bit more and of course enjoy the process.

 

[keithwms]

Just my feelings.... with standard exposure and development, hp5+ has more edge bite and character, tending to verge on stark tones; whereas the deltas provide a smoother and somewhat creamy/dreamy tone palette, with gentler transitions.

I like hp5+ in 6x7 and larger, and I like the deltas in 35mm. This probably has to do with mitigating some of the issues I mentioned above. In 8x10, hp5+ is freaking gorgeous and not nearly as stark as it is in 35mm.

 

[Peter Schrager]

HP5

try the 120 and larger size with HC110 and be suprised....this combo with Tri-x was the heralded one by Fred Picker via Ansel Adams....suprisingly the hp5 and hc110 is the one that REALLY works.....
Best, Peter

 

[rossawilson1]

I always shoot delta. Biggest difference for me is the contrast, HP5 has much more contrast, delta has a lot more tones.

Shooting at night like I do I find a low contrast film like delta stops such a naturally high contrast environment from becoming almost literally just black and white.

It really depends on your subject, delta in bright daylight or just in dull afternoon can look really dull, unless you're going for subtle textures, HP5 can help an abstract image look even more so.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

I have peered down the road of home development a time or two in the past. As a matter of fact, I have a couple of developing tanks and other various paraphernalia along with an unopened bag of D-76. However the mixing tools and measuring tools when added to the storage containers for mixed chemicals. And then add in the chemicals the cost was way over 100 bucks. I can get 20 rolls developed at my lab for that. Not that I don't want to learn the whole processing side of the hobby. Heck, my basement is light tight without any modifications. Guess I am not quite ready to jump off that cliff yet.

Only develop your own film when you feel good and ready.

It’s a big step when you do it for the first few times.

Do you know any other analogue photographers near to you?

It really helps to have a darkroom buddy to help you through the first couple of times and then be available to turn to when the inevitable “what the heck is wrong with these ” moments happen (we have ALL been there)

There really is nothing like watching carefully a more experienced guy to it and then you can have a go while he/she watches you.
An experienced darkroom buddy saves an awful lot of “character building experiences”

I would recommend an evening course at a local college – its where most people learned – but I am not sure many are doing film any more

It isn’t the cost that should drive you to do your own, it is the sense of achievement in owning the whole process from loading the film to hanging your pictures.

There is something indescribably thrilling when you open the tank after the development process and there they are – some of your own negs smiling back at you. It still thrills me and I have been doing it for more than 30 years.

Most professional photographers don’t bother with their own Developing and Processing, for them its just not financially effective to bother.
So it’s not a question of whether you are a “real photographer” just because you do/don’t process your own films.

In the end it’s a personal choice, some (like me) love it, while others loathe it.

Have fun

Martin

 

[George Collier]

One more vote for doing it yourself -
Control - over time you will finesse the right exposure and development - own the process.
The fun of it, as mentioned above.
Avoiding the eventual "sorry, we had a glitch in the lab today, please accept our replacement film..."
No waiting for the lab, see them the day you shoot, and the ritual of having a beer while they wash. Nothing like it.

 

[fschifano]

I've used them all. HP5+ is a bit grainier and a bit flatter in contrast through the middle grays than Tri-X. Delta 400's grain is not as fine as TMax 400. Does any of this really matter? No, not a bit. Any of these films is more than capable of producing first rate pictures. If we confine ourselves to referencing films from these two companies, the limiting factor will always be the photographer - not the materials. The documentation for all these products is first rate too. Read the tech sheets and you won't go wrong.

 

[emeraldcity_grain]

They are both fine films. HP5+ has less contrast, larger (though beautiful) grain and an extremely wide latitude. I find Delta films to be very finicky when it comes to processing. But when done right, it can be wonderful. My current preference is HP5+. 120 in Edwal FG7 and 35mm in DDX.

Happy shooting in the New Year.

 

[mawz]

try the 120 and larger size with HC110 and be suprised....this combo with Tri-x was the heralded one by Fred Picker via Ansel Adams....suprisingly the hp5 and hc110 is the one that REALLY works.....
Best, Peter

That's TX320P in HC110, a very different film from TX400, the 35mm version of Tri-X (And of course, both versions are available in 120, but TX320P is the only one available in sheet form)